One benefit of not spending 9 to 12 nights a month in hotels (national accounts) is I'm getting much more bench time for various cellar projects...

OK, I'll admit right off that most buyers of the SSR Pro Series won't think any upgrades are needed, and yeah I get that. I just happen to like what I like for features, and I also find working on my guns as much fun as shooting them (well, almost as much...).

Anyway, I made the following upgrades to my 686 Pro Series SSR and am really happy with the way it came out.

Don't know about a trigger job. It has an 11lb. DA pull, which is a bit stiff.

I received some guidance from a retired Police Armorer many years ago, and the vast majority of S&W revolvers can be improved by (a) Shooting a lot!

Or (b) [if you're handy with shop tools and know the trick to removing the S&W sideplate without prying it up] the shortest route to an improved trigger pull is to polish the bottom and side of the rebound slide where it contacts the frame, and cut from 1/2 to 1+1/2 coils off the rebound spring.

You're on your own if you do this DIY, but following all the training he gave me, I've done well over 1.5 dozen of my own or brother's Smiths over the years and they've all turned really out well, with much-improved trigger pulls and no issues with light strikes.

The keys are:
(1) Know your limitations and skills
(2) Use the right tools
(3) Polish only -- do not remove any metal
(4) Do it in steps, not all at once
(5) Learn the simple trick to removing sideplates unharmed*

Old No7

* It's quite easy:
Remove all screws with a proper screwdriver; with the grips removed, tap on the grip frame with wooden handle or plastic mallet until the plate jumps up -- handle it carefully. Don't force the sideplate when reinstalling it; the top corner (by rear sight) is hooked under first, line it up, then seat it; make sure the hammer block is in the right position and hasn't shifted. A light tap or two may be needed, but don't force it.

I had one and sold it to a customer that needed it more than I did. Stock it came with a good trigger, but a bit of smoothing and spring changes made it much better. I disliked the SSR grips so they went first. I really like your rear sight. I did have a gold bead on the front and liked it much more than the stock FO that came on the gun.

I made a decision a long time ago that while I readily disassemble semi-autos, I do not do that kind of work on revolvers. Like Insp. Callahan said, "a man's got to know his limitations" grin. You are absolutely right that Smith triggers really improve with shooting. I got some snap caps to get that process started during these wretched times whereby I cannot take my new 686 SSR to the range. Can't wait to start really breaking in the gun.

The SSR is my favorite revolver. Not long after purchase, I had a "action job performed on mine. It now has a 9 lb. 13 oz. DA and a 2.5 lb. SA trigger pull. It still has the stock springs inside. The smith was a true master at working on "Smiths". It is perfect now. I'm sure you will love yours. Have fun and be safe!!!

kee-ripes! how could you ever miss? this gun is unfair to mother nature and should be ... uh ... given to me (for safe keeping. think of the children. power to the peep hole.)

my 586 ca 1992 is ashamed. thank god it only has a 4" barrel or it would ... no, that's too unthinkable.

Old Number 7, my question for you if you don't mind, is explaining why a target hammer. my other gun is a 36-2 with the bull and target trigger and hammer, and I've made a few efforts to find out the reasoning behind it, but I still don't know.

I understand the target trigger. it slices and dices and makes hash, and concentrating through the blood and pain is the benefit, I get all that. but of what earthly value is a sharply checkered hammer, besides bitchenness of feel?

What other sights did you consider? Love the standard issue SSR Pro but would like to optimize sighting for my vision, need reading glasses so trying get system that allows me to forgo the "glasses" when put on safety glasses.
Gold bead doesn't appear to have as good contrast (as fiber optics) ... other considerations? Am I right to conclude should try matching front sight dot with similar rear sight dots?

What other sights did you consider? Love the standard issue SSR Pro but would like to optimize sighting for my vision, need reading glasses so trying get system that allows me to forgo the "glasses" when put on safety glasses.
Gold bead doesn't appear to have as good contrast (as fiber optics) ... other considerations? Am I right to conclude should try matching front sight dot with similar rear sight dots?

I have run the gun with the stock sights even though it would probably help me in competition to run a fiber optic front sight. This gives more visibility than a gold dot or red ramp in the daylight.

Regarding rear sights, I learned a long time ago that I prefer an all-black rear. That way, the only thing my eyes are drawn to when indexing on a target is the front sight. If I had FOs in the rear also, then I would have three dots bouncing around instead of just one.

I've now done three range sessions with *my* new 686SSR Pro Series. This resulted in me abandoning the Dawson FO sight in favor of the original Red Ramp sight that the gun came with. I found that the Dawson sight resulted (for me - YMMV) in inconsistency. I attribute this to the small size of the Dawson FO dot. I think that for the Dawson sight to work well I would need a different rear sight with a narrower notch. The Red-Ramp front sight is easy to place and I can get a ragged bull's-eye hole going with it. The Dawson sight is a fine piece of kit, but it did not work for me with the OEM rear sight on the 686SSR.

I never understood that revolvers care what type of bullets they shoot.

The question is whether the bullets you use match the specs of the chamber mouths and barrel. Some bullets can be more liberal in their tolerances than others, which can have an affect on accuracy.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Redlegvzv

I've now done three range sessions with *my* new 686SSR Pro Series. This resulted in me abandoning the Dawson FO sight in favor of the original Red Ramp sight that the gun came with. I found that the Dawson sight resulted (for me - YMMV) in inconsistency. I attribute this to the small size of the Dawson FO dot. I think that for the Dawson sight to work well I would need a different rear sight with a narrower notch. The Red-Ramp front sight is easy to place and I can get a ragged bull's-eye hole going with it. The Dawson sight is a fine piece of kit, but it did not work for me with the OEM rear sight on the 686SSR.

Were you shooting for precision or were you action-style shooting? My guns with FO front sights have never been useful for cutting a single ragged hole in paper, but I can get consistent A-zone/Down-0 hits with them a lot faster than I can with the red-ramp or black-post front sights.

Were you shooting for precision or were you action-style shooting? My guns with FO front sights have never been useful for cutting a single ragged hole in paper, but I can get consistent A-zone/Down-0 hits with them a lot faster than I can with the red-ramp or black-post front sights.

Both. I like a single ragged hole no matter what sight I am using. On a good day I can get that with my FO sighted guns, such as my S&W 625, 627PC, and many others (my CZ 75B SP01, to name my favorite).